Skiing can be a big part of life in Laramie. If you already enjoy skiing, there are lots of opportunities; if you don't ski, it is a great place to start. There is excellent cross-country skiing (classic, skate, ski-jouring) at the Happy Jack ski trails, about 15 minutes from town. The trails are groomed by a local club and the skiing is free, although a National Forest parking permit is required. Terrain varies from flat meadows to steep wooded hills, and even on busy days you generally have the trail to yourself (http://mbna.pbworks.com/).
The local ski resort, Snowy Range (http://www.snowyrangeski.com/) has been open for almost three weeks (36" of base snow already!). It is small in comparison to most western mountain resorts, but it is less than an hour from Laramie and the season pass ($150) is much cheaper than bigger resorts. Steamboat Springs, CO, is also two hours away (http://steamboat.com/).
Lastly, there is plenty of backcountry skiing within an hour to several hours of driving. I was surprised by how easy it was to connect with other folks to get out. I began telemarking last winter, and I quickly found out that my neighbor and several acquaintances regularly went into the backcountry and they were happy to let me tag along. In early January I am taking an avalanche-safety course so I can try and get out a bit more.
Classes finished last week, and after lots of hours I completed all of my make-up work for biochemistry. I am now focused on optimizing assays for the muscle samples I collected from polar bears in the field. Our project technician has extensive experience with some of the assays from her previous work on hibernating ground squirrels, and I am looking forward to learning from her as we figure out techniques for these samples. I am also returning to my project proposal. Because our funding began immediately after I accepted this PhD position, I began field work on the basis of the grant application rather than my own proposal. As I return to my proposal I am reading some of the latest articles regarding sea ice loss in the Arctic and related topics.
READING
Despite climate change and ice loss in the Arctic, ice extent in the Antarctic has actually been increasing. J. Zhang proposed this is due to a decrease in Antarctic ice melting that overwhelms a decrease in ice formation. J. Turner and others proposed this is due to alterations of ozone, and that there is a chance the changes in Antarctic ice extent are potentially still within a natural range of variability.
Zhang J. 2007. Increasing Antarctic sea ice under warming atmospheric and oceanic conditions. Journal of Climate 20:2515-2529.
Turner J, et al. 2009. Non-annular atmospheric circulation change induced by stratospheric ozone depletion and its role in the recent increase of Antarctic sea ice extent. Geophysical Research Letters 36:L08502 (5 pages).
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
How does science work?
A computer hacker recently stole hundreds of internal emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in England, and made them publicly available online (NY Times story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html). The emails reveal portions of discussions on analysis and presentation of data related to climate change, and some believe they are evidence of conspiracy surrounding climate change. I am not going to address that – skepticism is a prerequisite for good science, and the theory and data behind climate change should and do stand on their own – but this event does raise interesting questions about science as whole.
There can be a public perception of scientists as “analysis machines”: give a scientist raw data and get back objective conclusions, regardless of the context. This does not reflect reality. There are many subjective elements to science. Simply the process of selecting topics to study is subjective. Framing a hypothesis is a highly creative act, requiring equal parts imagination and critical thought. Likewise, there is no concrete guide for selecting methodology, for resolving uncontrollable events during data collection (people gathering data forget to write down something, batteries fail in a data collection device, etc), for selecting analytical approaches, or for drawing inferences.
How then can science “work?” How can it provide any objective, important observations? The first course in PiE is 5100, “Ecology as a research discipline.” Last year it was co-taught by PiE faculty from botany and philosophy. We extensively discussed this question and related questions about the philosophies behind scientific processes and values. I really enjoyed the course – to me, it seems far too rare that scientists can take time to thoroughly examine their implicit assumptions about science as a whole.
Many very smart people have considered the question of how science can work, and a lifetime could be spent trying to answer the question. Here are just a couple thoughts from my personal perspective. I think asking a good question is important; the question needs to address a very specific gap in knowledge, where surrounding material is well understood. Preferably, the question should have multiple potential answers, each with a clear relationship to the data that will be gathered. And, very importantly, the different answers should clearly relate to each other (for example, are they mutually exclusive?). Also, speaking more broadly, transparency is critical. Scientific reports should include enough information so the subjective judgments described above (framing a hypothesis, selecting methodology, selecting analytical approaches, etc) can easily be understood by the reader.
READING
John Platt’s 1964 article “Strong inference” (Science, vol 146, pages 347-353) lays out an interesting possible framework for doing good science.
PS – On an unrelated note, we had the Zoology and Physiology holiday party last night. The local band “The Patti Fiasco” performed and they were great; we even got faculty on the dance floor. Great job by those who organized it.
There can be a public perception of scientists as “analysis machines”: give a scientist raw data and get back objective conclusions, regardless of the context. This does not reflect reality. There are many subjective elements to science. Simply the process of selecting topics to study is subjective. Framing a hypothesis is a highly creative act, requiring equal parts imagination and critical thought. Likewise, there is no concrete guide for selecting methodology, for resolving uncontrollable events during data collection (people gathering data forget to write down something, batteries fail in a data collection device, etc), for selecting analytical approaches, or for drawing inferences.
How then can science “work?” How can it provide any objective, important observations? The first course in PiE is 5100, “Ecology as a research discipline.” Last year it was co-taught by PiE faculty from botany and philosophy. We extensively discussed this question and related questions about the philosophies behind scientific processes and values. I really enjoyed the course – to me, it seems far too rare that scientists can take time to thoroughly examine their implicit assumptions about science as a whole.
Many very smart people have considered the question of how science can work, and a lifetime could be spent trying to answer the question. Here are just a couple thoughts from my personal perspective. I think asking a good question is important; the question needs to address a very specific gap in knowledge, where surrounding material is well understood. Preferably, the question should have multiple potential answers, each with a clear relationship to the data that will be gathered. And, very importantly, the different answers should clearly relate to each other (for example, are they mutually exclusive?). Also, speaking more broadly, transparency is critical. Scientific reports should include enough information so the subjective judgments described above (framing a hypothesis, selecting methodology, selecting analytical approaches, etc) can easily be understood by the reader.
READING
John Platt’s 1964 article “Strong inference” (Science, vol 146, pages 347-353) lays out an interesting possible framework for doing good science.
PS – On an unrelated note, we had the Zoology and Physiology holiday party last night. The local band “The Patti Fiasco” performed and they were great; we even got faculty on the dance floor. Great job by those who organized it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
